the selectivity of Amicus Briefs (or rather, paying attention to them or not) is a bit disturbing, given that the Namesake of the AIA provided a view that the Court does not bother to acknowledge (at all):

Maybe, just maybe, you might be able to join the conversation and show your grasp by including the name (aside from the fact that I provided a direct link — which might show that you actually tried to inform yourself, with my help).

That conclusion is NOT supported by the “evidence,” hence, you ARE jumping.

It is simply NOT a matter as you attempt to project of some unwillingness to state the name.

Instead of trying so very hard to find some oddity that is not there, why don’t you instead use that energy to remove your own obtuseness and dive into the substantive portions of that brief (and the Court’s choice of ignoring the architect’s view of what Congress did)?